tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post114316226547501317..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Something Never Came From Nothing Because There Never Was Nothing - Or Something Like That...Ryan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1143941975750787982006-04-01T19:39:00.000-06:002006-04-01T19:39:00.000-06:00Butterfly Fox:Looks like Ron has a parody up. Lik...<B>Butterfly Fox</B>:<BR/><BR/>Looks like Ron has a parody up. Like, maybe and April Fool's joke..?Ryan Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1143574298950027602006-03-28T13:31:00.000-06:002006-03-28T13:31:00.000-06:00Christopher's pretty much got my point of view dow...Christopher's pretty much got my point of view down, there.<BR/><BR/>The universe could be acausal - without cause. This one's particularly unsatisfying to me, since it's a negative hypothesis: The first "acausal" event might actually have a cause we can't grasp/perceive/whatever.<BR/><BR/>The universe could be a big causality loop. This *might* be provable.<BR/><BR/>Causality is an infinite chain. Also seemingly unprovable.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1143563854087620962006-03-28T10:37:00.000-06:002006-03-28T10:37:00.000-06:00This argument is part of a series I call "Troublin...This argument is part of a series I call "Troubling questions... that religion doesn't answer".<BR/><BR/>Leaving aside science, philosophically it strikes me that there are three ways the universe could've begun:<BR/><BR/>1. There was a first cause, which was itself not caused by anything.<BR/><BR/>2. There are an infinate amount of causes, each one being caused by the prievious cause.<BR/><BR/>3. There is a circle of causes, with one or more causes being the cause of themselves.<BR/><BR/>Now, none of these scenarios is particularly intellectually satisfying, but making one of the causes "God" doesn't make them any more satisfying then making one of the causes something that ISN'T anthropomorphic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1143556046339187722006-03-28T08:27:00.000-06:002006-03-28T08:27:00.000-06:00Whoa, bro! How ya doin' Rockin' blog-dog?! Good to...Whoa, bro! How ya doin' Rockin' blog-dog?! Good to see ya postin' 'gain. Does this mean new job 'n' new PC? Sure do be hopin' so man.<BR/><BR/>And per the post: When a person says God has always existed, ask why then could not whatever initiated the Big Bang have always existed? Why must they assign it the name of God? Such being a silly superstition, why would they prefer to believe such a unsupportable concept, after considering the knowledge humans have gained in the last 100 years?<BR/><BR/>Human beings may never <I>transcend</I> (heheheh) this one Universe. As Joseph suggests, Human knowledge <A HREF="http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000542E5-F21A-1422-AE7883414B7F0000" REL="nofollow">already has though</A>.<BR/><BR/>Bronze Dog's singularity theory is also an excellent, and well researched, one of many theories in the realm of Cosmology.<BR/><BR/>Good to read ya 'gain RR!Michael Bainshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13734972725056899460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1143215045747879332006-03-24T09:44:00.000-06:002006-03-24T09:44:00.000-06:00Variant of that annoyance: "The Big Bang said noth...Variant of that annoyance: "The Big Bang said nothing exploded and..."<BR/><BR/>Before the Big Bang (or at T=0... whatever), everything was crammed together at one point, including space/time. The Big Bang said that singularity rapidly expanded... In other, less accurate, words, everything exploded: the exact opposite of that straw man.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.com